@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
Sorry what point are you trying to make here? 80% of slough needs a car?
No. What I am saying is that Bart's claim,
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of functioning adults manage their lives perfectly well without driving a car, ever. On the latest stats, about 1 in 4 adults in England don't have a driving licence.
That's not the case for everyone, sure. I'm not arguing for no cars at all anywhere, and you'd have to get pretty fringe to get that view.
What I do think is that cars can be excellent servants, but appalling masters. If we try to put sufficient road and parking space in urban areas, we cut them in pieces and often kill the things that make them good places to live. By making roads less safe and public transport less viable, we (and this includes me) make life demonstrably worse for the 1 in 4 adults who don't drive and the young people who struggle to be independently mobile.
And the evidence is that, if you create safe networks for walking and cycling, properly away from motorised traffic, people do use them as a serious way of getting bits of their daily business done. Which is good for everyone.
Plenty of people get about by being passengers in cars yes, or relying upon others who drive cars in order to service their needs instead.
Very few in modern society have nothing to do with cars, whether it be via being a passenger in one (inc taxis), or getting their post delivered, or parcels delivered, or going to shops which have cars, vans and trucks delivering their supplies.
Even if you don't drive, you almost certainly have people who are driving assisting you in the way you live on an daily basis. That's how modern society exists and it is all the better for it.
The evidence is that if you have safe networks for walking and cycling then a miniscule percentage of daily miles/km travelled is done that way, which is absolutely fine, but cars remain the overwhelming majority of transportation.
Even in tiny Netherlands, the most bike-friendly country in the world, bikes account for single-digit percentage of total km travelled while cars make up over 75%.
If you want to ride a bike a short distance then good luck to you, but unless you want to go back to 18th century standards of living, we need cars in the real world.
Er. 'Car' usually means 'private car'. Not delivery van, bus, minibus ... which is sort of the entire theme of all your posts as road warrior in backless gloves in his Rover 2000.
Actually vans, buses, minibuses, etc are simply different types of cars. And if you order off Amazon or other delivery suppliers then a significant portion of those deliveries are made by someone else's private car anyway. Plus if we're talking about investment in roads, or closing roads, then absolutely all of those vehicles need roads every bit as much as private cars do.
I've never driven a Rover, nor are my posts remotely road warrior unless you're an absolutely crazy anti-car fanatic - which this site seems to have a completely disproportionate amount of.
I've been consistently pro opening new roads for improving cycling and other demands which is win/win.
What I'm against is cutting capacity for over 90% of our transportation without any alternative. Build roads and you can add better cycling and walking capacity absolutely.
Fact remains, private cars are hopelssly selfish and consume vast amounts of resources compared to communal vehicles of various sorts. Even an Amazon delivery car is dozens of times better than driving to the local bookshop or W H Smiths.
Load of crap. Private cars consume minimal amounts of resources per mile travelled. They're wonderfully efficient.
Gram for gram my bike is a less efficient use of resources than my car.
Remarkable economic and engineering analysis. If it were true ...
Bujt it's not, because you have the rest of us pay much of the cost.
It is true. And you haven't paid a single penny towards my vehicle, quite the opposite, my taxes fund so much more than my driving.
My car weighs approximately 1220 kg. It has done just under 100k miles since I bought it new. I should pass the 100k mark this year.
So looking at the car weight per mile that is about 82 miles per kg.
But most of the time I have passengers in the vehicle. 2, 3 and sometimes 4. So let's estimate 250k total passenger miles travelled. That'd mean 205 passenger miles per kg of car weight. And that's disregarding the shopping etc transported too.
My bike weighs about 10kg and I won't have done more than double digit miles in it. And I've never carried any passengers on my bike.
I've done ~2k miles on my 10kg bike and ~10k miles in my 2400kg car.
What do we conclude from that? As with you figures, I'd suggest: "nothing".
Also, why are you dividing miles by mass? If anything, I'd multiply them for some indication of impact (wear on roads for example, indication of energy expended).
Would make more sense to *multiply* mass x distance. And note he's omitting the car's own weight in that equation, or rather indeed using it as a divider. Which is cheating.
Its not cheating, it is a divisor. I said that gram for gram my car is more efficient and it is, you need to divide distance by mass to calculate the distance travelled per kg of the vehicle.
You're forgetting physics. Energy consumed is a function of mass, as well as speed and acceleration (in complex ways, e.g. because of fruction).
I'm not forgetting it, that's why a lot of engineering has gone into making vehicles efficient.
Besides energy is not "resources" which was your original claim. Especially going forwards where cars are going to be charged via the wind, and in particular surplus wind generated overnight while the rest of our energy demands are low.
You're not forgetting it - you're deliberately ignoring it. An efficient car is still vastly inefficient in terms of people transported x distance.
And the road space issue still remains.
Its incredibly efficient. Nothing beats it in efficiency for point to point transportation.
What road space issue? There is no road space issue, roads are needed for cars or public transportation so build them to the required capacity. And if population grows, build more.
The biggest change Sunak needs is for inflation to keep falling. The less voters are worried about cost of living the less they will feel a need to change government, some tax cuts too once that is done would also help swing undecideds back to the Tories
"inflation falls" does not mean "cheaper prices"; in the current context it means "prices that have already gone up a lot more than wages and which are still going up".
Very good point. If inflation falls to 5% Sunak will say 'my promise has been delivered' while Joe Public is still seeing everything costing more than it did last year.
There's a great deal of deliberate obfuscation of the first and second order derivatives of the price variablewith the price variable itself in Toryspeak at the moment. In fact there has been a great deal for the last year or so since inflation became even more of an issue than usual. But, ass you say, it risks being counterproductive.
Similarly with the deliberate use of 'debt' when they (presumably*) mean deficit, although public deficit/debt is less in voters' faces than inflation.
(*Because no way is debt going to reduce in the lifetime of this parliament.)
Actually they do mean debt. The debt ratio specifically.
Debt to GDP falling is the target.
Was that ever clarified? In the actual speech he said:
"...Third, we will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services..."
But let's assume you're right, it makes sense after all. He has no chance of achieving that promise before a GE, does he?
Yes he says debt falling, not debt to GDP falling. There is no chance that debt will be falling, BTW. If he meant debt to GDP he should have said that. It's just more Tory dishonesty.
I completely dislike Sunak, find him dishonest, have quit the Tories, and currently plan to vote either Labour or Lib Dem at the next election . . . but this is not dishonesty.
Debt to GDP is the entirely normal and only rational measure of public sector debt. There's no need to say "to GDP" since it goes without saying.
£3 tn debt to £1 tn GDP is truly awful £3 tn debt to £3 tn GDP is very bad £3 tn debt to £30 tn GDP would be unprecedentedly low debt.
Debt alone means nothing without looking at GDP, so anyone rational always looks at debt to GDP on national levels.
I agree debt to GDP is the appropriate metric, but it needs to be said explicitly. The level of economic literacy in this country is bad enough without muddying the waters through a lack of precision - which is of course deliberate because Sunak wants to give the impression he is actually bringing debt down, not inflating it away.
The biggest change Sunak needs is for inflation to keep falling. The less voters are worried about cost of living the less they will feel a need to change government, some tax cuts too once that is done would also help swing undecideds back to the Tories
"inflation falls" does not mean "cheaper prices"; in the current context it means "prices that have already gone up a lot more than wages and which are still going up".
Very good point. If inflation falls to 5% Sunak will say 'my promise has been delivered' while Joe Public is still seeing everything costing more than it did last year.
There's a great deal of deliberate obfuscation of the first and second order derivatives of the price variablewith the price variable itself in Toryspeak at the moment. In fact there has been a great deal for the last year or so since inflation became even more of an issue than usual. But, ass you say, it risks being counterproductive.
Similarly with the deliberate use of 'debt' when they (presumably*) mean deficit, although public deficit/debt is less in voters' faces than inflation.
(*Because no way is debt going to reduce in the lifetime of this parliament.)
Actually they do mean debt. The debt ratio specifically.
Debt to GDP falling is the target.
Was that ever clarified? In the actual speech he said:
"...Third, we will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services..."
But let's assume you're right, it makes sense after all. He has no chance of achieving that promise before a GE, does he?
Yes he says debt falling, not debt to GDP falling. There is no chance that debt will be falling, BTW. If he meant debt to GDP he should have said that. It's just more Tory dishonesty.
I completely dislike Sunak, find him dishonest, have quit the Tories, and currently plan to vote either Labour or Lib Dem at the next election . . . but this is not dishonesty.
Debt to GDP is the entirely normal and only rational measure of public sector debt. There's no need to say "to GDP" since it goes without saying.
£3 tn debt to £1 tn GDP is truly awful £3 tn debt to £3 tn GDP is very bad £3 tn debt to £30 tn GDP would be unprecedentedly low debt.
Debt alone means nothing without looking at GDP, so anyone rational always looks at debt to GDP on national levels.
I agree with you but think Sunak left an unnecessary hostage to fortune by not expressing in clearer terms.
As it happens, it is academic because debt is not going to be falling before the GE, either nominally or as a proportion of GDP.
My Rutherglen & Hamilton West post on whether there is anything unusual to be gleaned from the Local Elections.
So my normal approach would be to base on the LE22 round and then see if there is any forward facing data since then
Rutherglen & Hamilton West LE22 gave: SNP 39.2 (-5.0 on GE19) Lab 34.1 (-0.4) Con 11.0 (-4.0) LD 11.0 (+5.8) Others (mainly Green) 4.6 (+3.4)
To my eyes a lot of the movement here is that of an STV election vs an FPTP election, a lot of that lost SNP vote is hidden in Others and likely to return as at this point.
So, LE22 is not too far away from GE19.
In terms of actual election swings since then, there have been 5 local by-elections in Scotland this year, 3 with Labour as the challengers. Swings away from the SNP on the first vote have been steady and consistent:
In Stirling SNP to Con challenger swing was 5.5% In Edinburgh SNP to LD swing was 6% In Aberdeen SNP to Lab was 9% In the Lanarkshires (though neither in this constituency) SNP to Lab were 11 and 13.5% respectively.
I don't know if it's the somewhat evened out political environment, large multi member wards, full slates of candidates, STV or what, but Scottish local elections and by elections, outside the Independent lands at least, show little of the madness that is often on show in England. Whenever I look things seem smooth, indicative and fairly well aligned with the polls.
If a 10ish% swing to Labour does not materialize, I think that will reflect back something hitherto unknown about the Scottish attitudes to GE24 and would be far more telling than Uxbridge ever was. Labour need the boring result that every indicator suggests will happen. The chance of that is non-zero, this will be the first politician sent to London from Scotland since Airdrie and Shotts returned Anum Qaisar in sunnier SNP days.
Curse of the long post / new thread
Please don't think me stupid, but the salient point did rather get lost in the detail. Do you think Labour will win Rutherglen and Hamilton or not?
Fair cop. That non-zero sentence didn't quite do the job.
The boring result seems the most likely (broadly Labour winning by a similar or slightly smaller % margin than the current SNP margin), but there is a non-zero chance of some Scottish reaction against London Labour, and the earlier quoted 10/1 on the SNP seems modest value to me.
I expect the vote in Rutherglen will be largely anti Yousaf and anti SNP
To put the cat among the pigeons, Alba, and specifically Salmond, should contest the by election.
Perhaps the only politician in Scotland less popular than Sturgeon. Humiliation would await.
You sure? I can't recall a poll more recent than June and she was on -7 or so. Plenty of others below that, I'd think.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
Sorry what point are you trying to make here? 80% of slough needs a car?
No. What I am saying is that Bart's claim,
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of functioning adults manage their lives perfectly well without driving a car, ever. On the latest stats, about 1 in 4 adults in England don't have a driving licence.
That's not the case for everyone, sure. I'm not arguing for no cars at all anywhere, and you'd have to get pretty fringe to get that view.
What I do think is that cars can be excellent servants, but appalling masters. If we try to put sufficient road and parking space in urban areas, we cut them in pieces and often kill the things that make them good places to live. By making roads less safe and public transport less viable, we (and this includes me) make life demonstrably worse for the 1 in 4 adults who don't drive and the young people who struggle to be independently mobile.
And the evidence is that, if you create safe networks for walking and cycling, properly away from motorised traffic, people do use them as a serious way of getting bits of their daily business done. Which is good for everyone.
Plenty of people get about by being passengers in cars yes, or relying upon others who drive cars in order to service their needs instead.
Very few in modern society have nothing to do with cars, whether it be via being a passenger in one (inc taxis), or getting their post delivered, or parcels delivered, or going to shops which have cars, vans and trucks delivering their supplies.
Even if you don't drive, you almost certainly have people who are driving assisting you in the way you live on an daily basis. That's how modern society exists and it is all the better for it.
The evidence is that if you have safe networks for walking and cycling then a miniscule percentage of daily miles/km travelled is done that way, which is absolutely fine, but cars remain the overwhelming majority of transportation.
Even in tiny Netherlands, the most bike-friendly country in the world, bikes account for single-digit percentage of total km travelled while cars make up over 75%.
If you want to ride a bike a short distance then good luck to you, but unless you want to go back to 18th century standards of living, we need cars in the real world.
Er. 'Car' usually means 'private car'. Not delivery van, bus, minibus ... which is sort of the entire theme of all your posts as road warrior in backless gloves in his Rover 2000.
Actually vans, buses, minibuses, etc are simply different types of cars. And if you order off Amazon or other delivery suppliers then a significant portion of those deliveries are made by someone else's private car anyway. Plus if we're talking about investment in roads, or closing roads, then absolutely all of those vehicles need roads every bit as much as private cars do.
I've never driven a Rover, nor are my posts remotely road warrior unless you're an absolutely crazy anti-car fanatic - which this site seems to have a completely disproportionate amount of.
I've been consistently pro opening new roads for improving cycling and other demands which is win/win.
What I'm against is cutting capacity for over 90% of our transportation without any alternative. Build roads and you can add better cycling and walking capacity absolutely.
Fact remains, private cars are hopelssly selfish and consume vast amounts of resources compared to communal vehicles of various sorts. Even an Amazon delivery car is dozens of times better than driving to the local bookshop or W H Smiths.
Load of crap. Private cars consume minimal amounts of resources per mile travelled. They're wonderfully efficient.
Gram for gram my bike is a less efficient use of resources than my car.
Remarkable economic and engineering analysis. If it were true ...
Bujt it's not, because you have the rest of us pay much of the cost.
It is true. And you haven't paid a single penny towards my vehicle, quite the opposite, my taxes fund so much more than my driving.
My car weighs approximately 1220 kg. It has done just under 100k miles since I bought it new. I should pass the 100k mark this year.
So looking at the car weight per mile that is about 82 miles per kg.
But most of the time I have passengers in the vehicle. 2, 3 and sometimes 4. So let's estimate 250k total passenger miles travelled. That'd mean 205 passenger miles per kg of car weight. And that's disregarding the shopping etc transported too.
My bike weighs about 10kg and I won't have done more than double digit miles in it. And I've never carried any passengers on my bike.
I've done ~2k miles on my 10kg bike and ~10k miles in my 2400kg car.
What do we conclude from that? As with you figures, I'd suggest: "nothing".
Also, why are you dividing miles by mass? If anything, I'd multiply them for some indication of impact (wear on roads for example, indication of energy expended).
Would make more sense to *multiply* mass x distance. And note he's omitting the car's own weight in that equation, or rather indeed using it as a divider. Which is cheating.
Its not cheating, it is a divisor. I said that gram for gram my car is more efficient and it is, you need to divide distance by mass to calculate the distance travelled per kg of the vehicle.
You're forgetting physics. Energy consumed is a function of mass, as well as speed and acceleration (in complex ways, e.g. because of fruction).
I'm not forgetting it, that's why a lot of engineering has gone into making vehicles efficient.
Besides energy is not "resources" which was your original claim. Especially going forwards where cars are going to be charged via the wind, and in particular surplus wind generated overnight while the rest of our energy demands are low.
You're not forgetting it - you're deliberately ignoring it. An efficient car is still vastly inefficient in terms of people transported x distance.
And the road space issue still remains.
Its incredibly efficient. Nothing beats it in efficiency for point to point transportation.
What road space issue? There is no road space issue, roads are needed for cars or public transportation so build them to the required capacity. And if population grows, build more.
Nothing beats a sailplane in efficiency for point to point transportation. You just have to be very specific about both points.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
The biggest change Sunak needs is for inflation to keep falling. The less voters are worried about cost of living the less they will feel a need to change government, some tax cuts too once that is done would also help swing undecideds back to the Tories
"inflation falls" does not mean "cheaper prices"; in the current context it means "prices that have already gone up a lot more than wages and which are still going up".
Very good point. If inflation falls to 5% Sunak will say 'my promise has been delivered' while Joe Public is still seeing everything costing more than it did last year.
There's a great deal of deliberate obfuscation of the first and second order derivatives of the price variablewith the price variable itself in Toryspeak at the moment. In fact there has been a great deal for the last year or so since inflation became even more of an issue than usual. But, ass you say, it risks being counterproductive.
Similarly with the deliberate use of 'debt' when they (presumably*) mean deficit, although public deficit/debt is less in voters' faces than inflation.
(*Because no way is debt going to reduce in the lifetime of this parliament.)
Actually they do mean debt. The debt ratio specifically.
Debt to GDP falling is the target.
Was that ever clarified? In the actual speech he said:
"...Third, we will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services..."
But let's assume you're right, it makes sense after all. He has no chance of achieving that promise before a GE, does he?
Yes he says debt falling, not debt to GDP falling. There is no chance that debt will be falling, BTW. If he meant debt to GDP he should have said that. It's just more Tory dishonesty.
I completely dislike Sunak, find him dishonest, have quit the Tories, and currently plan to vote either Labour or Lib Dem at the next election . . . but this is not dishonesty.
Debt to GDP is the entirely normal and only rational measure of public sector debt. There's no need to say "to GDP" since it goes without saying.
£3 tn debt to £1 tn GDP is truly awful £3 tn debt to £3 tn GDP is very bad £3 tn debt to £30 tn GDP would be unprecedentedly low debt.
Debt alone means nothing without looking at GDP, so anyone rational always looks at debt to GDP on national levels.
June's figures:
"Public sector net debt (PSND ex) was £2,596.2 billion at the end of June 2023 or provisionally estimated at around 100.8% of the UK's annual gross domestic product (GDP), continuing at levels last seen in the early 1960s."
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
Sorry what point are you trying to make here? 80% of slough needs a car?
No. What I am saying is that Bart's claim,
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of functioning adults manage their lives perfectly well without driving a car, ever. On the latest stats, about 1 in 4 adults in England don't have a driving licence.
That's not the case for everyone, sure. I'm not arguing for no cars at all anywhere, and you'd have to get pretty fringe to get that view.
What I do think is that cars can be excellent servants, but appalling masters. If we try to put sufficient road and parking space in urban areas, we cut them in pieces and often kill the things that make them good places to live. By making roads less safe and public transport less viable, we (and this includes me) make life demonstrably worse for the 1 in 4 adults who don't drive and the young people who struggle to be independently mobile.
And the evidence is that, if you create safe networks for walking and cycling, properly away from motorised traffic, people do use them as a serious way of getting bits of their daily business done. Which is good for everyone.
Plenty of people get about by being passengers in cars yes, or relying upon others who drive cars in order to service their needs instead.
Very few in modern society have nothing to do with cars, whether it be via being a passenger in one (inc taxis), or getting their post delivered, or parcels delivered, or going to shops which have cars, vans and trucks delivering their supplies.
Even if you don't drive, you almost certainly have people who are driving assisting you in the way you live on an daily basis. That's how modern society exists and it is all the better for it.
The evidence is that if you have safe networks for walking and cycling then a miniscule percentage of daily miles/km travelled is done that way, which is absolutely fine, but cars remain the overwhelming majority of transportation.
Even in tiny Netherlands, the most bike-friendly country in the world, bikes account for single-digit percentage of total km travelled while cars make up over 75%.
If you want to ride a bike a short distance then good luck to you, but unless you want to go back to 18th century standards of living, we need cars in the real world.
Er. 'Car' usually means 'private car'. Not delivery van, bus, minibus ... which is sort of the entire theme of all your posts as road warrior in backless gloves in his Rover 2000.
Actually vans, buses, minibuses, etc are simply different types of cars. And if you order off Amazon or other delivery suppliers then a significant portion of those deliveries are made by someone else's private car anyway. Plus if we're talking about investment in roads, or closing roads, then absolutely all of those vehicles need roads every bit as much as private cars do.
I've never driven a Rover, nor are my posts remotely road warrior unless you're an absolutely crazy anti-car fanatic - which this site seems to have a completely disproportionate amount of.
I've been consistently pro opening new roads for improving cycling and other demands which is win/win.
What I'm against is cutting capacity for over 90% of our transportation without any alternative. Build roads and you can add better cycling and walking capacity absolutely.
Fact remains, private cars are hopelssly selfish and consume vast amounts of resources compared to communal vehicles of various sorts. Even an Amazon delivery car is dozens of times better than driving to the local bookshop or W H Smiths.
Load of crap. Private cars consume minimal amounts of resources per mile travelled. They're wonderfully efficient.
Gram for gram my bike is a less efficient use of resources than my car.
Remarkable economic and engineering analysis. If it were true ...
Bujt it's not, because you have the rest of us pay much of the cost.
It is true. And you haven't paid a single penny towards my vehicle, quite the opposite, my taxes fund so much more than my driving.
My car weighs approximately 1220 kg. It has done just under 100k miles since I bought it new. I should pass the 100k mark this year.
So looking at the car weight per mile that is about 82 miles per kg.
But most of the time I have passengers in the vehicle. 2, 3 and sometimes 4. So let's estimate 250k total passenger miles travelled. That'd mean 205 passenger miles per kg of car weight. And that's disregarding the shopping etc transported too.
My bike weighs about 10kg and I won't have done more than double digit miles in it. And I've never carried any passengers on my bike.
I've done ~2k miles on my 10kg bike and ~10k miles in my 2400kg car.
What do we conclude from that? As with you figures, I'd suggest: "nothing".
Also, why are you dividing miles by mass? If anything, I'd multiply them for some indication of impact (wear on roads for example, indication of energy expended).
Would make more sense to *multiply* mass x distance. And note he's omitting the car's own weight in that equation, or rather indeed using it as a divider. Which is cheating.
Its not cheating, it is a divisor. I said that gram for gram my car is more efficient and it is, you need to divide distance by mass to calculate the distance travelled per kg of the vehicle.
You're forgetting physics. Energy consumed is a function of mass, as well as speed and acceleration (in complex ways, e.g. because of fruction).
I'm not forgetting it, that's why a lot of engineering has gone into making vehicles efficient.
Besides energy is not "resources" which was your original claim. Especially going forwards where cars are going to be charged via the wind, and in particular surplus wind generated overnight while the rest of our energy demands are low.
You're not forgetting it - you're deliberately ignoring it. An efficient car is still vastly inefficient in terms of people transported x distance.
And the road space issue still remains.
Its incredibly efficient. Nothing beats it in efficiency for point to point transportation.
What road space issue? There is no road space issue, roads are needed for cars or public transportation so build them to the required capacity. And if population grows, build more.
You're using a completely aberrant definition of efficiency, especiallfy in the context of energy consumption.
Your car may be convenient - but very inefficient. Very, very inefficient. You're squandering energy for your personal convenience. That's the root of the matter.
Also expensive road space/time. What the railway timetablers would call paths.
My Rutherglen & Hamilton West post on whether there is anything unusual to be gleaned from the Local Elections.
So my normal approach would be to base on the LE22 round and then see if there is any forward facing data since then
Rutherglen & Hamilton West LE22 gave: SNP 39.2 (-5.0 on GE19) Lab 34.1 (-0.4) Con 11.0 (-4.0) LD 11.0 (+5.8) Others (mainly Green) 4.6 (+3.4)
To my eyes a lot of the movement here is that of an STV election vs an FPTP election, a lot of that lost SNP vote is hidden in Others and likely to return as at this point.
So, LE22 is not too far away from GE19.
In terms of actual election swings since then, there have been 5 local by-elections in Scotland this year, 3 with Labour as the challengers. Swings away from the SNP on the first vote have been steady and consistent:
In Stirling SNP to Con challenger swing was 5.5% In Edinburgh SNP to LD swing was 6% In Aberdeen SNP to Lab was 9% In the Lanarkshires (though neither in this constituency) SNP to Lab were 11 and 13.5% respectively.
I don't know if it's the somewhat evened out political environment, large multi member wards, full slates of candidates, STV or what, but Scottish local elections and by elections, outside the Independent lands at least, show little of the madness that is often on show in England. Whenever I look things seem smooth, indicative and fairly well aligned with the polls.
If a 10ish% swing to Labour does not materialize, I think that will reflect back something hitherto unknown about the Scottish attitudes to GE24 and would be far more telling than Uxbridge ever was. Labour need the boring result that every indicator suggests will happen. The chance of that is non-zero, this will be the first politician sent to London from Scotland since Airdrie and Shotts returned Anum Qaisar in sunnier SNP days.
Curse of the long post / new thread
Please don't think me stupid, but the salient point did rather get lost in the detail. Do you think Labour will win Rutherglen and Hamilton or not?
Fair cop. That non-zero sentence didn't quite do the job.
The boring result seems the most likely (broadly Labour winning by a similar or slightly smaller % margin than the current SNP margin), but there is a non-zero chance of some Scottish reaction against London Labour, and the earlier quoted 10/1 on the SNP seems modest value to me.
I expect the vote in Rutherglen will be largely anti Yousaf and anti SNP
To put the cat among the pigeons, Alba, and specifically Salmond, should contest the by election.
Perhaps the only politician in Scotland less popular than Sturgeon. Humiliation would await.
You sure? I can't recall a poll more recent than June and she was on -7 or so. Plenty of others below that, I'd think.
Salmond included, he polls at levels only comparable to Johnson.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
Yes. I don't know enough about what's been laid so far to see if it can be salvaged. My instinct says build a new garden city at the most convenient end of what's been built now, as a new commuter town for London, which is the only benefit of HS2 anyway. Get King Charles to build it. It would keep him out of trouble. But I don't know if that's actually practicable.
The biggest change Sunak needs is for inflation to keep falling. The less voters are worried about cost of living the less they will feel a need to change government, some tax cuts too once that is done would also help swing undecideds back to the Tories
"inflation falls" does not mean "cheaper prices"; in the current context it means "prices that have already gone up a lot more than wages and which are still going up".
Very good point. If inflation falls to 5% Sunak will say 'my promise has been delivered' while Joe Public is still seeing everything costing more than it did last year.
There's a great deal of deliberate obfuscation of the first and second order derivatives of the price variablewith the price variable itself in Toryspeak at the moment. In fact there has been a great deal for the last year or so since inflation became even more of an issue than usual. But, ass you say, it risks being counterproductive.
Similarly with the deliberate use of 'debt' when they (presumably*) mean deficit, although public deficit/debt is less in voters' faces than inflation.
(*Because no way is debt going to reduce in the lifetime of this parliament.)
Actually they do mean debt. The debt ratio specifically.
Debt to GDP falling is the target.
Was that ever clarified? In the actual speech he said:
"...Third, we will make sure our national debt is falling so that we can secure the future of public services..."
But let's assume you're right, it makes sense after all. He has no chance of achieving that promise before a GE, does he?
Yes he says debt falling, not debt to GDP falling. There is no chance that debt will be falling, BTW. If he meant debt to GDP he should have said that. It's just more Tory dishonesty.
I completely dislike Sunak, find him dishonest, have quit the Tories, and currently plan to vote either Labour or Lib Dem at the next election . . . but this is not dishonesty.
Debt to GDP is the entirely normal and only rational measure of public sector debt. There's no need to say "to GDP" since it goes without saying.
£3 tn debt to £1 tn GDP is truly awful £3 tn debt to £3 tn GDP is very bad £3 tn debt to £30 tn GDP would be unprecedentedly low debt.
Debt alone means nothing without looking at GDP, so anyone rational always looks at debt to GDP on national levels.
June's figures:
"Public sector net debt (PSND ex) was £2,596.2 billion at the end of June 2023 or provisionally estimated at around 100.8% of the UK's annual gross domestic product (GDP), continuing at levels last seen in the early 1960s."
Up from 100.1% in May, so looks like another Sunak Fail.
Yep! Criticise him because he's failing on his own targets.
Don't criticise him because he's failing on a target he never set and nobody would mean. He's failing anyway so its completely unnecessary to do that anyway.
I have always operated on the basis that setting a target, it should be SMART. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely.
Sunak either did not set SMART targets, or he has so badly performed he's failing in them. Either way, its not a good luck and doesn't need dishonesty to show that.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
My Rutherglen & Hamilton West post on whether there is anything unusual to be gleaned from the Local Elections.
So my normal approach would be to base on the LE22 round and then see if there is any forward facing data since then
Rutherglen & Hamilton West LE22 gave: SNP 39.2 (-5.0 on GE19) Lab 34.1 (-0.4) Con 11.0 (-4.0) LD 11.0 (+5.8) Others (mainly Green) 4.6 (+3.4)
To my eyes a lot of the movement here is that of an STV election vs an FPTP election, a lot of that lost SNP vote is hidden in Others and likely to return as at this point.
So, LE22 is not too far away from GE19.
In terms of actual election swings since then, there have been 5 local by-elections in Scotland this year, 3 with Labour as the challengers. Swings away from the SNP on the first vote have been steady and consistent:
In Stirling SNP to Con challenger swing was 5.5% In Edinburgh SNP to LD swing was 6% In Aberdeen SNP to Lab was 9% In the Lanarkshires (though neither in this constituency) SNP to Lab were 11 and 13.5% respectively.
I don't know if it's the somewhat evened out political environment, large multi member wards, full slates of candidates, STV or what, but Scottish local elections and by elections, outside the Independent lands at least, show little of the madness that is often on show in England. Whenever I look things seem smooth, indicative and fairly well aligned with the polls.
If a 10ish% swing to Labour does not materialize, I think that will reflect back something hitherto unknown about the Scottish attitudes to GE24 and would be far more telling than Uxbridge ever was. Labour need the boring result that every indicator suggests will happen. The chance of that is non-zero, this will be the first politician sent to London from Scotland since Airdrie and Shotts returned Anum Qaisar in sunnier SNP days.
Curse of the long post / new thread
Please don't think me stupid, but the salient point did rather get lost in the detail. Do you think Labour will win Rutherglen and Hamilton or not?
Fair cop. That non-zero sentence didn't quite do the job.
The boring result seems the most likely (broadly Labour winning by a similar or slightly smaller % margin than the current SNP margin), but there is a non-zero chance of some Scottish reaction against London Labour, and the earlier quoted 10/1 on the SNP seems modest value to me.
I expect the vote in Rutherglen will be largely anti Yousaf and anti SNP
To put the cat among the pigeons, Alba, and specifically Salmond, should contest the by election.
Perhaps the only politician in Scotland less popular than Sturgeon. Humiliation would await.
You sure? I can't recall a poll more recent than June and she was on -7 or so. Plenty of others below that, I'd think.
Salmon included, he polls at levels only comparable to Johnson.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
Its not my primary identity either. When its the topic of conversation, then it is relevant, and if Labour makes this a big clash by running on an anti-driver agenda, then that would put off a lot of people in marginal constituencies.
Its why Blair was always keen to keep drivers on board and so will Starmer be. Quite rightly too.
Well if not your primary identity it's certainly up there. I sense that when you introduce yourself to someone new at a social gathering you will quite quickly work in that you're a driver and damn proud of it. Maybe even go on to claim that your car is gram for gram more efficient than a train.
But, yes, I agree on Starmer. He'll be wary of anything that could be maliciously but tenably spun as 'Labour are coming after your car'.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
Hydrogen was never going to be a starter for domestic systems. Utterly insane.
You could design from scratch a system to handle hydrogen, so it may be used in industrial settings in the future.
But to retrofit the old gas system to hydrogen? Nobody who knew anything about chemistry ever thought that was really going to happen.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
Its not my primary identity either. When its the topic of conversation, then it is relevant, and if Labour makes this a big clash by running on an anti-driver agenda, then that would put off a lot of people in marginal constituencies.
Its why Blair was always keen to keep drivers on board and so will Starmer be. Quite rightly too.
Well if not your primary identity it's certainly up there. I sense that when you introduce yourself to someone new at a social gathering you will quite quickly work in that you're a driver and damn proud of it. Maybe even go on to claim that your car is gram for gram more efficient than a train.
But, yes, I agree on Starmer. He'll be wary of anything that could be maliciously but tenably spun as 'Labour are coming after your car'.
Not even close, no. Although I'm currently on holiday at my in-laws in Canada and one topic of conversation is how the price of petrol per litre is cheaper in $CA than it is in £. Despite a £1 = $1.80 exchange rate.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
I think Labours current lead is soft. Not helped by their tiresome we can’t spend any money hysteria .
The Tories will of course find money to give all manner of sweeteners before the next election and will of course be given a free ride by their press friends .
Meanwhile Labour will look like a wet weekend in Skegness.
Relying on the time for a change to win the GE is dangerous , Starmer is no Blair.
Labour should come out fighting , tell the Tories they won’t be lectured to on finances given their track record and make some spending commitments . They should make an offer on childcare and school meals and do something to help students.
They should increase the rates on the highest earners and stop faffing about with the Ming Vase .
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
It is farcical to build it from Oak Common to Crewe. Build it properly or not at all.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
Ok fair enough I respect your view. But HS2 is a complete disaster, supported by few and cancellation and the saving on state expenditure would help with the desperate need for central and other government to cut costs.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
Agree - the amount of moaning and whining from motorheads when you try and put in a simple bike lane with a few bollards.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
Sorry what point are you trying to make here? 80% of slough needs a car?
No. What I am saying is that Bart's claim,
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of functioning adults manage their lives perfectly well without driving a car, ever. On the latest stats, about 1 in 4 adults in England don't have a driving licence.
That's not the case for everyone, sure. I'm not arguing for no cars at all anywhere, and you'd have to get pretty fringe to get that view.
What I do think is that cars can be excellent servants, but appalling masters. If we try to put sufficient road and parking space in urban areas, we cut them in pieces and often kill the things that make them good places to live. By making roads less safe and public transport less viable, we (and this includes me) make life demonstrably worse for the 1 in 4 adults who don't drive and the young people who struggle to be independently mobile.
And the evidence is that, if you create safe networks for walking and cycling, properly away from motorised traffic, people do use them as a serious way of getting bits of their daily business done. Which is good for everyone.
Plenty of people get about by being passengers in cars yes, or relying upon others who drive cars in order to service their needs instead.
Very few in modern society have nothing to do with cars, whether it be via being a passenger in one (inc taxis), or getting their post delivered, or parcels delivered, or going to shops which have cars, vans and trucks delivering their supplies.
Even if you don't drive, you almost certainly have people who are driving assisting you in the way you live on an daily basis. That's how modern society exists and it is all the better for it.
The evidence is that if you have safe networks for walking and cycling then a miniscule percentage of daily miles/km travelled is done that way, which is absolutely fine, but cars remain the overwhelming majority of transportation.
Even in tiny Netherlands, the most bike-friendly country in the world, bikes account for single-digit percentage of total km travelled while cars make up over 75%.
If you want to ride a bike a short distance then good luck to you, but unless you want to go back to 18th century standards of living, we need cars in the real world.
Er. 'Car' usually means 'private car'. Not delivery van, bus, minibus ... which is sort of the entire theme of all your posts as road warrior in backless gloves in his Rover 2000.
Actually vans, buses, minibuses, etc are simply different types of cars. And if you order off Amazon or other delivery suppliers then a significant portion of those deliveries are made by someone else's private car anyway. Plus if we're talking about investment in roads, or closing roads, then absolutely all of those vehicles need roads every bit as much as private cars do.
I've never driven a Rover, nor are my posts remotely road warrior unless you're an absolutely crazy anti-car fanatic - which this site seems to have a completely disproportionate amount of.
I've been consistently pro opening new roads for improving cycling and other demands which is win/win.
What I'm against is cutting capacity for over 90% of our transportation without any alternative. Build roads and you can add better cycling and walking capacity absolutely.
Fact remains, private cars are hopelssly selfish and consume vast amounts of resources compared to communal vehicles of various sorts. Even an Amazon delivery car is dozens of times better than driving to the local bookshop or W H Smiths.
Load of crap. Private cars consume minimal amounts of resources per mile travelled. They're wonderfully efficient.
Gram for gram my bike is a less efficient use of resources than my car.
Remarkable economic and engineering analysis. If it were true ...
Bujt it's not, because you have the rest of us pay much of the cost.
It is true. And you haven't paid a single penny towards my vehicle, quite the opposite, my taxes fund so much more than my driving.
My car weighs approximately 1220 kg. It has done just under 100k miles since I bought it new. I should pass the 100k mark this year.
So looking at the car weight per mile that is about 82 miles per kg.
But most of the time I have passengers in the vehicle. 2, 3 and sometimes 4. So let's estimate 250k total passenger miles travelled. That'd mean 205 passenger miles per kg of car weight. And that's disregarding the shopping etc transported too.
My bike weighs about 10kg and I won't have done more than double digit miles in it. And I've never carried any passengers on my bike.
I've done ~2k miles on my 10kg bike and ~10k miles in my 2400kg car.
What do we conclude from that? As with you figures, I'd suggest: "nothing".
Also, why are you dividing miles by mass? If anything, I'd multiply them for some indication of impact (wear on roads for example, indication of energy expended).
Would make more sense to *multiply* mass x distance. And note he's omitting the car's own weight in that equation, or rather indeed using it as a divider. Which is cheating.
Its not cheating, it is a divisor. I said that gram for gram my car is more efficient and it is, you need to divide distance by mass to calculate the distance travelled per kg of the vehicle.
You're forgetting physics. Energy consumed is a function of mass, as well as speed and acceleration (in complex ways, e.g. because of fruction).
I'm not forgetting it, that's why a lot of engineering has gone into making vehicles efficient.
Besides energy is not "resources" which was your original claim. Especially going forwards where cars are going to be charged via the wind, and in particular surplus wind generated overnight while the rest of our energy demands are low.
You're not forgetting it - you're deliberately ignoring it. An efficient car is still vastly inefficient in terms of people transported x distance.
And the road space issue still remains.
Its incredibly efficient. Nothing beats it in efficiency for point to point transportation.
What road space issue? There is no road space issue, roads are needed for cars or public transportation so build them to the required capacity. And if population grows, build more.
You're using a completely aberrant definition of efficiency, especiallfy in the context of energy consumption.
Your car may be convenient - but very inefficient. Very, very inefficient. You're squandering energy for your personal convenience. That's the root of the matter.
Also expensive road space/time. What the railway timetablers would call paths.
I'm not talking about energy consumption, I'm talking about resources. Which is what you said.
Our energy we charge our cars with going forwards is going to be a free resource. Surplus overnight wind energy. The wind overnight is going to be blowing whether we charge our vehicles or not.
Cars of the future far from being a problem environmentally, are the solution. By absorbing surplus wind energy overnight it allows us to be able to afford enough wind energy to decarbonise our electrical system in the daytime too.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
It is farcical to build it from Oak Common to Crewe. Build it properly or not at all.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
Agree - the amount of moaning and whining from motorheads when you try and put in a simple bike lane with a few bollards.
Polar opposite is true.
I've never once objected to bollards on new roads.
People like you seem to object to new roads, which enable bollards.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
I raised an eyebrow when I heard Northern Gas Networks were central to fitting the hydrogen supply infrastructure in the trial areas (although tbf it wouldn't be the water board). Of all the people who dig up the roads near us they are the most careless at leaving holes and barriers and leaving roads closed 5 days after they've finished their work.
Or closing the main road into Halifax for what ended up a few days because they'd accidently fractured the gas main as they did a few years back.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
Sorry what point are you trying to make here? 80% of slough needs a car?
No. What I am saying is that Bart's claim,
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of functioning adults manage their lives perfectly well without driving a car, ever. On the latest stats, about 1 in 4 adults in England don't have a driving licence.
That's not the case for everyone, sure. I'm not arguing for no cars at all anywhere, and you'd have to get pretty fringe to get that view.
What I do think is that cars can be excellent servants, but appalling masters. If we try to put sufficient road and parking space in urban areas, we cut them in pieces and often kill the things that make them good places to live. By making roads less safe and public transport less viable, we (and this includes me) make life demonstrably worse for the 1 in 4 adults who don't drive and the young people who struggle to be independently mobile.
And the evidence is that, if you create safe networks for walking and cycling, properly away from motorised traffic, people do use them as a serious way of getting bits of their daily business done. Which is good for everyone.
Plenty of people get about by being passengers in cars yes, or relying upon others who drive cars in order to service their needs instead.
Very few in modern society have nothing to do with cars, whether it be via being a passenger in one (inc taxis), or getting their post delivered, or parcels delivered, or going to shops which have cars, vans and trucks delivering their supplies.
Even if you don't drive, you almost certainly have people who are driving assisting you in the way you live on an daily basis. That's how modern society exists and it is all the better for it.
The evidence is that if you have safe networks for walking and cycling then a miniscule percentage of daily miles/km travelled is done that way, which is absolutely fine, but cars remain the overwhelming majority of transportation.
Even in tiny Netherlands, the most bike-friendly country in the world, bikes account for single-digit percentage of total km travelled while cars make up over 75%.
If you want to ride a bike a short distance then good luck to you, but unless you want to go back to 18th century standards of living, we need cars in the real world.
Er. 'Car' usually means 'private car'. Not delivery van, bus, minibus ... which is sort of the entire theme of all your posts as road warrior in backless gloves in his Rover 2000.
Actually vans, buses, minibuses, etc are simply different types of cars. And if you order off Amazon or other delivery suppliers then a significant portion of those deliveries are made by someone else's private car anyway. Plus if we're talking about investment in roads, or closing roads, then absolutely all of those vehicles need roads every bit as much as private cars do.
I've never driven a Rover, nor are my posts remotely road warrior unless you're an absolutely crazy anti-car fanatic - which this site seems to have a completely disproportionate amount of.
I've been consistently pro opening new roads for improving cycling and other demands which is win/win.
What I'm against is cutting capacity for over 90% of our transportation without any alternative. Build roads and you can add better cycling and walking capacity absolutely.
Fact remains, private cars are hopelssly selfish and consume vast amounts of resources compared to communal vehicles of various sorts. Even an Amazon delivery car is dozens of times better than driving to the local bookshop or W H Smiths.
Load of crap. Private cars consume minimal amounts of resources per mile travelled. They're wonderfully efficient.
Gram for gram my bike is a less efficient use of resources than my car.
Remarkable economic and engineering analysis. If it were true ...
Bujt it's not, because you have the rest of us pay much of the cost.
It is true. And you haven't paid a single penny towards my vehicle, quite the opposite, my taxes fund so much more than my driving.
My car weighs approximately 1220 kg. It has done just under 100k miles since I bought it new. I should pass the 100k mark this year.
So looking at the car weight per mile that is about 82 miles per kg.
But most of the time I have passengers in the vehicle. 2, 3 and sometimes 4. So let's estimate 250k total passenger miles travelled. That'd mean 205 passenger miles per kg of car weight. And that's disregarding the shopping etc transported too.
My bike weighs about 10kg and I won't have done more than double digit miles in it. And I've never carried any passengers on my bike.
I've done ~2k miles on my 10kg bike and ~10k miles in my 2400kg car.
What do we conclude from that? As with you figures, I'd suggest: "nothing".
Also, why are you dividing miles by mass? If anything, I'd multiply them for some indication of impact (wear on roads for example, indication of energy expended).
Would make more sense to *multiply* mass x distance. And note he's omitting the car's own weight in that equation, or rather indeed using it as a divider. Which is cheating.
Its not cheating, it is a divisor. I said that gram for gram my car is more efficient and it is, you need to divide distance by mass to calculate the distance travelled per kg of the vehicle.
You're forgetting physics. Energy consumed is a function of mass, as well as speed and acceleration (in complex ways, e.g. because of fruction).
I'm not forgetting it, that's why a lot of engineering has gone into making vehicles efficient.
Besides energy is not "resources" which was your original claim. Especially going forwards where cars are going to be charged via the wind, and in particular surplus wind generated overnight while the rest of our energy demands are low.
You're not forgetting it - you're deliberately ignoring it. An efficient car is still vastly inefficient in terms of people transported x distance.
And the road space issue still remains.
Its incredibly efficient. Nothing beats it in efficiency for point to point transportation.
What road space issue? There is no road space issue, roads are needed for cars or public transportation so build them to the required capacity. And if population grows, build more.
Nothing beats a sailplane in efficiency for point to point transportation. You just have to be very specific about both points.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
It is perfectly sane to say that LDs will have fewer seats after rather than before the GE. I think it unlikely.
It is the rest of your comments on this site that are misanthropic and paranoid. Not everyone thinks as you, and I think there will be far more pro LD tactical voting than anti LD.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
National Gas are still looking at converting the entire NTS to H2.
“I’ve been trying to pin it down but there is something lacking in his approach and how it comes out on TV.”
Exactly the same here. However, I think a PB poster (sorry, can’t locate it now) from a thread earlier in week hit the nail on the head by saying that Sunak comes over as being ‘whiny’. Never a good sound for a leader.
I think he comes across as inauthentic.
It's partly his repetition of lines to take; partly a slightly inane grin. He just doesn't engage. He is unable to relax.
I don't think he can do anything about it. It's in his nature. He must know that he is failing to engage and that makes him even more anxious. Sad for him.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
Hydrogen was never going to be a starter for domestic systems. Utterly insane.
You could design from scratch a system to handle hydrogen, so it may be used in industrial settings in the future.
But to retrofit the old gas system to hydrogen? Nobody who knew anything about chemistry ever thought that was really going to happen.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
“I’ve been trying to pin it down but there is something lacking in his approach and how it comes out on TV.”
Exactly the same here. However, I think a PB poster (sorry, can’t locate it now) from a thread earlier in week hit the nail on the head by saying that Sunak comes over as being ‘whiny’. Never a good sound for a leader.
I think he comes across as inauthentic.
It's partly his repetition of lines to take; partly a slightly inane grin. He just doesn't engage. He is unable to relax.
I don't think he can do anything about it. It's in his nature. He must know that he is failing to engage and that makes him even more anxious. Sad for him.
“I’ve been trying to pin it down but there is something lacking in his approach and how it comes out on TV.”
Exactly the same here. However, I think a PB poster (sorry, can’t locate it now) from a thread earlier in week hit the nail on the head by saying that Sunak comes over as being ‘whiny’. Never a good sound for a leader.
I think he comes across as inauthentic.
It's partly his repetition of lines to take; partly a slightly inane grin. He just doesn't engage. He is unable to relax.
I don't think he can do anything about it. It's in his nature. He must know that he is failing to engage and that makes him even more anxious. Sad for him.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
It is perfectly sane to say that LDs will have fewer seats after rather than before the GE. I think it unlikely.
It is the rest of your comments on this site that are misanthropic and paranoid. Not everyone thinks as you, and I think there will be far more pro LD tactical voting than anti LD.
Ah I see then you basically made a comment attacking me rather than what I actually said...in otherwords you did an ad hominem
Yes I do angry posts when idiots here tout for stuff that is going to shaft the poorest like just stick 1 percent on basic rate income tax to pay for education( an ld policy) without seeming to care how many families that is going to turn from just about managing to we cant make the money last till the end of the month....not sorry and not planning to apologise.....most people here are the people which it wont really effect because they are well off arseholes like you.
As to the paranoid...I dont believe trying to rein in state surveillance of individuals by for example disliking the move to a cashless economy is paranoid it is common sense. When the DDR was still a thing we all were "the stasi gather so much info on citizens and its bad"....all states now have info on citizens that the stasi would have given their left bollock to have....they have the metadata for everyone you ever contact electronically...they have everything you ever post on social media....they have everywhere you drive from anpr...we have more camera's in the uk than just about anywhere......you would have been laughed at if you called those in the ddr about being paranoid about the stasi....yet you call me paranoid for saying maybe the state has too much info let us not give them more?
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
Hydrogen was never going to be a starter for domestic systems. Utterly insane.
You could design from scratch a system to handle hydrogen, so it may be used in industrial settings in the future.
But to retrofit the old gas system to hydrogen? Nobody who knew anything about chemistry ever thought that was really going to happen.
With respect, you're talking shite.
I’ve handled actual hydrogen - liquid cryogen and gas form.
The handling and safety rules for hydrogen are very different from those for methane (natural gas, pretty much).
Just the material incompatibility issue - is every material used in the pipe work hydrogen embrittlement safe? How do you find out? Are all the joins hydrogen tight (much harder to do, porous solder can allow hydrogen to leak *through* it)
Can’t see how that would work unless all the pipe work was replaced and certified.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
Hydrogen was never going to be a starter for domestic systems. Utterly insane.
You could design from scratch a system to handle hydrogen, so it may be used in industrial settings in the future.
But to retrofit the old gas system to hydrogen? Nobody who knew anything about chemistry ever thought that was really going to happen.
With respect, you're talking shite.
No, I'm not.
Retrofitting the entire National Gas network and making it safe for hydrogen is a complete non-starter. It is never going to happen.
The only people saying it will are kite fliers or those who want to suggest that so they don't need to make a more serious solution.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
Agree - the amount of moaning and whining from motorheads when you try and put in a simple bike lane with a few bollards.
Polar opposite is true.
I've never once objected to bollards on new roads.
People like you seem to object to new roads, which enable bollards.
Without taking sides, it's interesting to look at the period of roadbuilding in the 1930s - such as the East Lancs Road. New dual carriageways in this period were invariably built with cycling infrastructure alongside - not least because most people then had bikes, not cars. Also quite interesting looking at photos of streeta from the 30s,andthe number of bikes about.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
EVs are the only solution to climate change when it comes to transportation. Everything else is a bad joke.
Public transport and non-EV "solutions" are like farts in the wind, 90% of transportation mileage is cars and that is the same in almost every developed country on the planet and it is not changing. Even the most cycling-friendly country on the planet which has spent half a century very heavily promoting cycling use doesn't have even 10% of its transportation km via cycling.
There isn't a country in the world where most transportation is not via cars, vans etc
If you care about climate change, care about EVs. If you don't, you don't give a damn about the climate and have an ulterior motive.
As for your other issues, almost none of them are due to cars. EG obesity is because people eat too much, not because of transportation.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
Given seats like Kensington, Cities of London and Westminster and Chipping Barnet are now in the top 100 Labour target seats, some of the voters they will be targeting are high earners. Indeed a high earning Remainer is probably more likely to vote for Starmer Labour now than a working class Leave voting pensioner
I see the Sky News Paper Review has returned to being an in-studio affair after more than 3 years of doing it remotely.
A huge proportion of BBC and Sky news is still covered via people talking on Zoom. It has to be much cheaper to do that, than pay for taxi to studio, makeup, etc, all for 5-10 minutes of spouting nonsense.
Of course unless its mega hot in Spain, then they need to put somebody on a plane to witness that in person.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
Agree - the amount of moaning and whining from motorheads when you try and put in a simple bike lane with a few bollards.
Polar opposite is true.
I've never once objected to bollards on new roads.
People like you seem to object to new roads, which enable bollards.
Without taking sides, it's interesting to look at the period of roadbuilding in the 1930s - such as the East Lancs Road. New dual carriageways in this period were invariably built with cycling infrastructure alongside - not least because most people then had bikes, not cars. Also quite interesting looking at photos of streeta from the 30s,andthe number of bikes about.
Yes, indeed. And new road building today has cycling infrastructure too.
Yet when I suggest new houses and new road building, the cycling lobby on this site react with terror.
They have an ulterior motive other than supporting cycling and it is laughably transparent.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
Agree - the amount of moaning and whining from motorheads when you try and put in a simple bike lane with a few bollards.
Polar opposite is true.
I've never once objected to bollards on new roads.
People like you seem to object to new roads, which enable bollards.
Without taking sides, it's interesting to look at the period of roadbuilding in the 1930s - such as the East Lancs Road. New dual carriageways in this period were invariably built with cycling infrastructure alongside - not least because most people then had bikes, not cars. Also quite interesting looking at photos of streeta from the 30s,andthe number of bikes about.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
Agree - the amount of moaning and whining from motorheads when you try and put in a simple bike lane with a few bollards.
Polar opposite is true.
I've never once objected to bollards on new roads.
People like you seem to object to new roads, which enable bollards.
Without taking sides, it's interesting to look at the period of roadbuilding in the 1930s - such as the East Lancs Road. New dual carriageways in this period were invariably built with cycling infrastructure alongside - not least because most people then had bikes, not cars. Also quite interesting looking at photos of streeta from the 30s,andthe number of bikes about.
Yes, indeed. And new road building today has cycling infrastructure too.
Yet when I suggest new houses and new road building, the cycling lobby on this site react with terror.
They have an ulterior motive other than supporting cycling and it is laughably transparent.
Many new roads still have nothing better than a line of paint down the gutter, or a painting of a bicycle on the pavement.
I see the Sky News Paper Review has returned to being an in-studio affair after more than 3 years of doing it remotely.
A huge proportion of BBC and Sky news is still covered via people talking on Zoom. It has to be much cheaper to do that, than pay for taxi to studio, makeup, etc, all for 5-10 minutes of spouting nonsense.
Of course unless its mega hot in Spain, then they need to put somebody on a plane to witness that in person.
I agree it's cheaper, but it's better to watch IMO when the people are together in the studio. Interesting that Sky News has realised this themselves. I had assumed they'd stick with Zoom forever.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
Carrots cost the government money, sticks don't. The Tory approach is to not spend money, even if doing so saves you money in the long term.
Unfortunately across most public policy areas, and transport particularly so, carrots regularly fail - even when the money is available to provide them - because people's behaviour is highly path-dependent and they are more likely to flee from a stick (current behaviour is harder) than run to a carrot (some new option might be better).
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
The problem though and I say this as someone who hasnt owned a motor vehicle for over a decade is that public transport is not a viable solution. I currently work from home....if I got a job that required me to be in the office again I would have no choice but to buy a car.
I'm not arguing against the carrots, I'm arguing that the sticks are needed to a) pay for them and b) encourage people to eat them. In some parts of the country, for some journeys, there's no feasible alternative to private motorised transport. In a lot of the places people live it is very realistic for far more people than currently do so to walk, wheel, ride-share, train, bus, or some combination of those.
Even when I lived in the south east (slough) public transport for work was only viable if I was working in london or reading and for reading only viable if your office was near the train station so you didnt have to do a train bus combo.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and take the £99k.
Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP. And in theory people on that sort of money are big "value adders" to the economy, while also people who can negotiate T&Cs to get extra benefits while staying under the £100k.
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
A lot of the cost of infrastructure, like the cost of housing, is because of our absurd planning and court systems and a lack of desire to JFDI.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
Agree - the amount of moaning and whining from motorheads when you try and put in a simple bike lane with a few bollards.
Polar opposite is true.
I've never once objected to bollards on new roads.
People like you seem to object to new roads, which enable bollards.
Without taking sides, it's interesting to look at the period of roadbuilding in the 1930s - such as the East Lancs Road. New dual carriageways in this period were invariably built with cycling infrastructure alongside - not least because most people then had bikes, not cars. Also quite interesting looking at photos of streeta from the 30s,andthe number of bikes about.
Yes, indeed. And new road building today has cycling infrastructure too.
Yet when I suggest new houses and new road building, the cycling lobby on this site react with terror.
They have an ulterior motive other than supporting cycling and it is laughably transparent.
Many new roads still have nothing better than a line of paint down the gutter, or a painting of a bicycle on the pavement.
Increasing numbers have dedicated cycle paths. And its much easier to design on new roads - or retrofit old through roads if new roads can take the capacity of cars away from the old roads.
If you want to support cycling, support new roads.
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
I'd have absolutely no qualms with a criteria for new roads [except obviously eg new Motorways] being that they must as standard have a dedicated cycle path that is away from both cars and pedestrians. That would support cyclists and drivers, and then build lots of new roads with cycling capabilities, but our cycling lobby here object to that. Funny that.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
I know you're not Labour, but many of your posts, including this one, suggest to me that you could be. I reckon you're a closet socialist. It's safe to come out. And there's lots of us in London pubs.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
I see the Sky News Paper Review has returned to being an in-studio affair after more than 3 years of doing it remotely.
A huge proportion of BBC and Sky news is still covered via people talking on Zoom. It has to be much cheaper to do that, than pay for taxi to studio, makeup, etc, all for 5-10 minutes of spouting nonsense.
Of course unless its mega hot in Spain, then they need to put somebody on a plane to witness that in person.
I agree it's cheaper, but it's better to watch IMO when the people are together in the studio. Interesting that Sky News has realised this themselves. I had assumed they'd stick with Zoom forever.
Given viewing numbers are piss poor on basically all news channels, I am surprised quality over cost has won out.
I don't know what sort of Event, but it would have to be a jolly big one. And probably not the one referenced in the Mitchell and Webb "Remain Indoors" sketches.
But if Rishi goes into the election having to persuade people, it's just not going to work, unless he is using this holiday to have a Complete Personality Transplant operation.
The 'event' would have to be something big and negative for Labour. Which I don't see because Starmer owns the party now and is taking no risks whatsoever. Absolutely nothing gets out (policy or messaging) that might upset the sort of voters he needs to win and hence is targeting (being red wall leavers and apolitical floaters).
Its not going to happen as Starmer isn't completely crazy, but if Labour adopted the anti-car attitude shown by many people here in recent days then that could turn every marginal constituency against Labour.
The election is decided by drivers. Starmer isn't stupid enough to be anti-driver.
'Driver' is not most people's primary identity though. You are unusual in this respect.
I am one of the more pro-Green voters on here, but think the current Tory approach to net zero is laudable but wrong. The emphasis is far too much on banning things (ICE cars, Gas boilers) and not enough on positive encouragement to get more green.
Government building more charging infrastructure, councils giving free parking for EVs, expanding rather than shrinking bus networks etc. So much better to use carrot than stick.
This whole "banning gas boilers" thing is a big load of bollocks. New boilers will have to be:hydrogen ready" but as long as natural gas is still flowing through the pipes we'll be cooking on gas.
Except I thought the idea of using hydrogen was going to be quietly dropped now?
Deathtrap in a domestic context, it has to be said. I've had enough trouble with gas fitters over the years that hydrogen is a nonstarter in Maison Carnyx.
I raised an eyebrow when I heard Northern Gas Networks were central to fitting the hydrogen supply infrastructure in the trial areas (although tbf it wouldn't be the water board). Of all the people who dig up the roads near us they are the most careless at leaving holes and barriers and leaving roads closed 5 days after they've finished their work.
Or closing the main road into Halifax for what ended up a few days because they'd accidently fractured the gas main as they did a few years back.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and get £99k. Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP.
Agreed the personal allowance restriction is an absolute abomination. My proposal gets rid of it and charges a fair effective rate of IT of 50% post £115,000 actual earnings. It helps those £100,000 to £150,000 not uncommon earnings now but makes those post £150,000 pay more. I would not be adverse to 60% IT post £200,000 taxable income.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and get £99k. Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP.
Agreed the personal allowance restriction is an absolute abomination. My proposal gets rid of it and charges a fair effective rate of IT of 50% post £115,000 actual earnings. It helps those £100,000 to £150,000 not uncommon earnings now but makes those post £150,000 pay more. I would not be adverse to 60% IT post £200,000 taxable income.
I did of course mean 'income' rather than 'earnings'
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
Because I think few lib dem votes are votes for the lib dems frankly. I think a lot of their voters will go labour to get the tories out or to the greens because they actually have policies they believe in. ( I don't like the greens policies I will say but right not I think probably they are the only party that has policies they believe in that will resonate with people)
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and get £99k. Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP.
Agreed the personal allowance restriction is an absolute abomination. My proposal gets rid of it and charges a fair effective rate of IT of 50% post £115,000 actual earnings. It helps those £100,000 to £150,000 not uncommon earnings now but makes those post £150,000 pay more. I would not be adverse to 60% IT post £200,000 taxable income.
It is indeed, but the biggest abomination of all is the Universal Credit Taper applying alongside Income Tax and National Insurance.
That leaves low earning people on a real marginal tax rate of 70% plus. Even more if repaying Student Loans too.
If it were up to me I'd look to abolish all welfare, all exceptions to taxation etc, and replace it all with a UBI which is given to everyone [no exceptions], and then a flat tax rate of maybe 40% on everything earned [again no exceptions]. Maybe 50% at £100k+
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
What's more what seats could they viably lose anyway? Is Tory HQ really going to, for instance, divert activists away from defending Wycombe or Reading West to try and overturn an eight and half a thousand Lib Dem majority in Oxford West and Abingdon? They're more bonkers than even I think they are if they do.
Great performance from Panama to score 3 goals against France at the women's world cup in Australia / New Zealand, even though France scored 6. France are ranked 5th in the world and Panama 52nd.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
Because I think few lib dem votes are votes for the lib dems frankly. I think a lot of their voters will go labour to get the tories out or to the greens because they actually have policies they believe in. ( I don't like the greens policies I will say but right not I think probably they are the only party that has policies they believe in that will resonate with people)
Things that could shift polls toward Sunak: -Raise the VAT threshold on small businesses to £200,000 -Remove VAT on domestic fuel These are both exceedingly unlikely sadly, because they can't be done legally in Northern Ireland. -Approve tidal energy in Wales and get his name and face all over it in-front of some diggers 'new green power era for Wales' etc. -Delay ban on new petrols and diesels to the new EU date of 2035 -Start flying lots of lots of boat people to Rwanda -Ditch HS2 once and for all with a workable legacy plan that makes the whole thing done so far not quite such a collossal waste of time and money. -A proper housing bill, sorting out actual issues like legacy EU laws on nutrient neutrality: https://www.endsreport.com/article/1754796/100000-homes-limbo-due-nutrient-neutrality-advice-housebuilders-claim, and land-banking by big developers, to actually get houses built in serious numbers - not just Michael Gove farting around re-announcing something about developing in urban areas. Sunak pictured in a hard-hat in a digger etc.
All these things would shift the polls. There are not a good programme for Government, because good Government involves a massive amount of things that would not shift the polls in the short term, but these would.
And it goes without saying that a new leader would sell these new policies a lot better than Sunak.
Get rid of HS2 would be such a good idea. Would save us £100bn plus. Just needs someone to be brave enough to say it was a mistake.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
I don't think that cancelling HS2 would save £100bn, as a lot of the money has already been spent. Plus, the government would inevitably get sued by firms it had contracted to do work.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
Of course there are shut down costs. They are miniscule compared to the money chucked down the shitter by senselessly carrying on. As for the 'reputational damage' come off it. It would be the first sign that we're actually in business.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I'd put the chances of the LDs having more seats after the next election at about 99.99%. (Famous last words, hopefully not).
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line (bit faded, tbf). Mandatory cycle lane.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
Because I think few lib dem votes are votes for the lib dems frankly. I think a lot of their voters will go labour to get the tories out or to the greens because they actually have policies they believe in. ( I don't like the greens policies I will say but right not I think probably they are the only party that has policies they believe in that will resonate with people)
You're assuming Labour voters won't vote tactically for the Lib Dems in seats they have no chance of winning but the Lib Dems do (St Ives, Lewes, Wells etc.).
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
As I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
They are knocking down Edinburgh Castle for a new motorway.
I, and the majority of people in Edinburgh, voted for this is in the local elections last year. Good to see democracy prevail against the tyranny of the motoring minority.
Cycle lanes in my area consist of when the council paints white lines along the side of the road. The road hasn't been widened, and the lines are right against the side of the road, with no extra room for cyclists. A waste of white paint.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and take the £99k.
Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP. And in theory people on that sort of money are big "value adders" to the economy, while also people who can negotiate T&Cs to get extra benefits while staying under the £100k.
Are there any countries where they don't use cliff edges for taxation, instead having a sliding scale of some sort?
Cycle lanes in my area consist of when the council paints white lines along the side of the road. The road hasn't been widened, and the lines are right against the side of the road, with no extra room for cyclists. A waste of white paint.
They induce close passes too. Just get the Dutch to design it!
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and get £99k. Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP.
Agreed the personal allowance restriction is an absolute abomination. My proposal gets rid of it and charges a fair effective rate of IT of 50% post £115,000 actual earnings. It helps those £100,000 to £150,000 not uncommon earnings now but makes those post £150,000 pay more. I would not be adverse to 60% IT post £200,000 taxable income.
It is indeed, but the biggest abomination of all is the Universal Credit Taper applying alongside Income Tax and National Insurance.
That leaves low earning people on a real marginal tax rate of 70% plus. Even more if repaying Student Loans too.
If it were up to me I'd look to abolish all welfare, all exceptions to taxation etc, and replace it all with a UBI which is given to everyone [no exceptions], and then a flat tax rate of maybe 40% on everything earned [again no exceptions]. Maybe 50% at £100k+
Oddly enough - and afiar - that was the Scottish Green Party manifesto commitment.
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
I think taxes should be raised for high earners, and I'm not even a usual Labour supporter. So I assume most of their supporters won't be happy if the policy is not to raise them.
I'm not LAB at all. However I think personal allowance should be increased to £15,000pa. Every one should get this including post £100k so no more taper. Beyond the PA it should be 20% on the first £50,000; 40% on the next £50,000; 50%+ beyond that. So everyone on £150,000 or less would be better off, those above it can/should pay more 👍
One of the big problems with big cliff edges, such as now at £100k, it is all the wrong incentives for economic output. Basically don't work more, don't strive to get promoted any further, instead negotiation for 4 days a week or more holiday and get £99k. Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP.
Agreed the personal allowance restriction is an absolute abomination. My proposal gets rid of it and charges a fair effective rate of IT of 50% post £115,000 actual earnings. It helps those £100,000 to £150,000 not uncommon earnings now but makes those post £150,000 pay more. I would not be adverse to 60% IT post £200,000 taxable income.
It is indeed, but the biggest abomination of all is the Universal Credit Taper applying alongside Income Tax and National Insurance.
That leaves low earning people on a real marginal tax rate of 70% plus. Even more if repaying Student Loans too.
If it were up to me I'd look to abolish all welfare, all exceptions to taxation etc, and replace it all with a UBI which is given to everyone [no exceptions], and then a flat tax rate of maybe 40% on everything earned [again no exceptions]. Maybe 50% at £100k+
Oddly enough - and afiar - that was the Scottish Green Party manifesto commitment.
Did it include abolishing welfare? Or just introducing a UBI as an extra layer?
The key for a UBI to work is all other stuff must be abolished. The UBI replaces it all [except maybe exceptional non-income related cases like disability support].
Biden and Trump are both buys: they should be, respectively, 45% and 35% chances.
RFK is a straight sell. (True chance 0.1%) Newsom is also a sell, albeit not quite as obviously as RFK. DeSantis is about right.
Instead, put money on Christie and Harris. (Christie because he has a viable, if narrow path. Harris because if Biden keels over, she becomes President, and then the de facto nominee, despite being a pretty terrible candidate.)
Why does everyone denigrate Kamala Harris? I've heard her speak a couple of times and she impresses me. I can understand why she would generate plenty of negativity from opponents (and if that's why you think she'd be a terrible candidate, I get that) but sometimes you have to do that in order to win if you galvanise enough people on your side (witness one Donald Trump).
With respect stodge you are a lib dem, you no doubt are impressed by the non entity that is ed davey
I am an Ed Davey fan. Sure, he is unfashionably white, male, middle aged, and a bit portly, but he has always been an effective organiser and strategic thinker.
The LD campaign machine is now an effective force, and I suspect he is quite looking forward to the GE, where doubling the number of LD MPs is a reasonable objective, and returning to the position of 3rd party in Parliament quite possible.
Ld's will have less seats after the next election. They are the never wases of british politics I expect them to be overtaken in mp numbers by the greens
That's a terrible bet. The Greens have to be a fifty/fifty shot for losing their only MP.
As I said not predicting crossover for next election,,,,merely saying people actively want green mps....lib dems are merely a protest vote
Your post reads as if you meant next election, but even so you definitely said the LDs will have less seats after the next election so do you want a bet?
Yes I think they will have less seats after the next election, not the same as claiming the crossover between lib dems and greens will occur next election
One key to political betting successfully, as OGH has said, is to separate one's own political opinions from an analysis of the British peoples.
The LDs clearly represent the views of a significant minority of the country, and poll in both Council and PR elections above what they get at FPTP. This suggests that more people would vote LD if there was a prospect of winning.
Not everyone is as misanthropic and paranoid as you.
What is paranoid and misanthropic about saying I believe the ld's will have less seats after the next election. Care to explain?
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
I have a fuck ton of work to do, but I will explain why I think you are wrong on LD seats, and why I think they will increase their numbers at the next election.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
I don't mind in the least people disagreeing with what I said with reasons. I was mainly objecting to foxy doing an ad hominem about being misanthropic, paranoid and angry when my post was none of them. It was an ad hominem attack.
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
But @Pagan2@rcs1000 has given sensible reasons why they will have more seats. You seem to be arguing they won't just because you don't want them to win more. Rationally though what is your reason for thinking they will win less seats other than you want that.
Because I think few lib dem votes are votes for the lib dems frankly. I think a lot of their voters will go labour to get the tories out or to the greens because they actually have policies they believe in. ( I don't like the greens policies I will say but right not I think probably they are the only party that has policies they believe in that will resonate with people)
You're assuming Labour voters won't vote tactically for the Lib Dems in seats they have no chance of winning but the Lib Dems do (St Ives, Lewes, Wells etc.).
I dont think the natural voters have forgotten 2010
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
Single yellow line, its entirely legal to park there depending upon parking restrictions signposted. And given time of night, its probably allowed within those restrictions (as its typically eg saying no at 7am - 7pm etc).
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
It's not, actually. It's a solid white line.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
White line doesn't mean you can't park there. Check the Highway Code. It means, like single yellow line, that you need to check restrictions. White zig zags mean you can't park there.
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Weird. You should tell Police Scotland and the council, who keep fining people here.
As I said, it depends what the signposted restrictions say for its hours of operation.
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
Comments
What road space issue? There is no road space issue, roads are needed for cars or public transportation so build them to the required capacity. And if population grows, build more.
As it happens, it is academic because debt is not going to be falling before the GE, either nominally or as a proportion of GDP.
Accidents happen in any system. Try to lower them, sure, and teach children road safety.
Speed bumps don't sound like a terribly good idea on the steeper hills as they can add quite a lot of "excitement" in snow.
Moving ICE to 2035 is more likely and should be announced in the next few months
"Public sector net debt (PSND ex) was £2,596.2 billion at the end of June 2023 or provisionally estimated at around 100.8% of the UK's annual gross domestic product (GDP), continuing at levels last seen in the early 1960s."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/june2023
Up from 100.1% in May, so looks like another Sunak Fail.
Your car may be convenient - but very inefficient. Very, very inefficient. You're squandering energy for your personal convenience. That's the root of the matter.
Also expensive road space/time. What the railway timetablers would call paths.
Don't criticise him because he's failing on a target he never set and nobody would mean. He's failing anyway so its completely unnecessary to do that anyway.
I have always operated on the basis that setting a target, it should be SMART. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely.
Sunak either did not set SMART targets, or he has so badly performed he's failing in them. Either way, its not a good luck and doesn't need dishonesty to show that.
But, yes, I agree on Starmer. He'll be wary of anything that could be maliciously but tenably spun as 'Labour are coming after your car'.
You could design from scratch a system to handle hydrogen, so it may be used in industrial settings in the future.
But to retrofit the old gas system to hydrogen? Nobody who knew anything about chemistry ever thought that was really going to happen.
Right now, the land has been bought and a lot of the work has already started. If you cancel it, you are looking at big bills, no working railway, and you further damage the UK's reputation as a place where infrastructure gets built.
Shows how ripped off we are in the UK.
HS2 could and should have been built for a fraction of the cost. Same as houses.
The Tories will of course find money to give all manner of sweeteners before the next election and will of course be given a free ride by their press friends .
Meanwhile Labour will look like a wet weekend in Skegness.
Relying on the time for a change to win the GE is dangerous , Starmer is no Blair.
Labour should come out fighting , tell the Tories they won’t be lectured to on finances given their track record and make some spending commitments . They should make an offer on childcare and school meals and do something to help students.
They should increase the rates on the highest earners and stop faffing about with the Ming Vase .
Our energy we charge our cars with going forwards is going to be a free resource. Surplus overnight wind energy. The wind overnight is going to be blowing whether we charge our vehicles or not.
Cars of the future far from being a problem environmentally, are the solution. By absorbing surplus wind energy overnight it allows us to be able to afford enough wind energy to decarbonise our electrical system in the daytime too.
Why is it alright to tactically vote to keep a tory out but my expression that I would absolutely tactically vote to keep a lib dem out paranoid and misanthropic? Care to explain?
Either tactical voting is good or its not, you cant claim tactical voting is only good if the side you favour wins. I would vote for corbyn to keep a lib dem out frankly.
Do they think this group will thank them ?
I've never once objected to bollards on new roads.
People like you seem to object to new roads, which enable bollards.
hydrogen supply infrastructure in the trial areas (although tbf it wouldn't be the water board). Of all the people who dig up the roads near us they are the most careless at leaving holes and barriers and leaving roads closed 5 days after they've finished their work.
Or closing the main road into Halifax for what ended up a few days because they'd accidently fractured the gas main as they did a few years back.
https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/elland-bypass-expected-to-be-closed-all-day-due-to-major-gas-leak-585010
It is the rest of your comments on this site that are misanthropic and paranoid. Not everyone thinks as you, and I think there will be far more pro LD tactical voting than anti LD.
It's partly his repetition of lines to take; partly a slightly inane grin. He just doesn't engage. He is unable to relax.
I don't think he can do anything about it. It's in his nature. He must know that he is failing to engage and that makes him even more anxious. Sad for him.
People in the UK (and the US) vote mainly against parties, rather than for them.
If the LibDems manage to position themselves as a challenger in a seat, then they will attract the anti-Conservative vote.
Look at Scotland. In Scotland, the LibDems poll significantly below the levels of England. In 2017, they got just 6.8% of the vote North of the Border. Yet they won four seats. Just 179,000 votes got the LDs four seats. While in the rest of England and Wales, 2,200,000 votes got them eight.
That happened because the LDs were able to use a little bit of canny campaigning (only the LDs yada yada), combined with some local strength on the council, to establish themselves as the challenger (albeit to the SNP not Cons, but the point is the same).
This time around, the Conservative vote is well down, and the LDs have had a pretty good time in local elections. In fact, they've been the big gainers in each of the last couple of cycles of local election results. That means they'll be the main challengers in about 20-odd seats.
Now, could they lose seats? Sure they could.
But given the dramatically smaller gap between the LD and Con vote shares in 2024 compared to 2019, and their significantly better local presence, I would be very surprised if they didn't gain half a dozen seats.
Yes I do angry posts when idiots here tout for stuff that is going to shaft the poorest like just stick 1 percent on basic rate income tax to pay for education( an ld policy) without seeming to care how many families that is going to turn from just about managing to we cant make the money last till the end of the month....not sorry and not planning to apologise.....most people here are the people which it wont really effect because they are well off arseholes like you.
As to the paranoid...I dont believe trying to rein in state surveillance of individuals by for example disliking the move to a cashless economy is paranoid it is common sense. When the DDR was still a thing we all were "the stasi gather so much info on citizens and its bad"....all states now have info on citizens that the stasi would have given their left bollock to have....they have the metadata for everyone you ever contact electronically...they have everything you ever post on social media....they have everywhere you drive from anpr...we have more camera's in the uk than just about anywhere......you would have been laughed at if you called those in the ddr about being paranoid about the stasi....yet you call me paranoid for saying maybe the state has too much info let us not give them more?
A nuclear engineer reviews the blockbuster film.
Robert Zubrin"
https://quillette.com/2023/08/01/how-accurate-is-christopher-nolans-oppenheimer/
The next election will tell who is right but I certainly don't believe the lds will have more seats
The handling and safety rules for hydrogen are very different from those for methane (natural gas, pretty much).
Just the material incompatibility issue - is every material used in the pipe work hydrogen embrittlement safe? How do you find out? Are all the joins hydrogen tight (much harder to do, porous solder can allow hydrogen to leak *through* it)
Can’t see how that would work unless all the pipe work was replaced and certified.
Retrofitting the entire National Gas network and making it safe for hydrogen is a complete non-starter. It is never going to happen.
The only people saying it will are kite fliers or those who want to suggest that so they don't need to make a more serious solution.
EVs solve very few of the problems of urban mobility - they may redistribute the pollution but they don't fix congestion, inactivity, road danger, obesity, or wear and tear on road surfaces, so the notion of further subsidies for them, when there are a hundred other better ways to spend that money, that would be a no.
Public transport and non-EV "solutions" are like farts in the wind, 90% of transportation mileage is cars and that is the same in almost every developed country on the planet and it is not changing. Even the most cycling-friendly country on the planet which has spent half a century very heavily promoting cycling use doesn't have even 10% of its transportation km via cycling.
There isn't a country in the world where most transportation is not via cars, vans etc
If you care about climate change, care about EVs. If you don't, you don't give a damn about the climate and have an ulterior motive.
As for your other issues, almost none of them are due to cars. EG obesity is because people eat too much, not because of transportation.
Of course unless its mega hot in Spain, then they need to put somebody on a plane to witness that in person.
Yet when I suggest new houses and new road building, the cycling lobby on this site react with terror.
They have an ulterior motive other than supporting cycling and it is laughably transparent.
Which is again a drag on productivity and GDP. And in theory people on that sort of money are big "value adders" to the economy, while also people who can negotiate T&Cs to get extra benefits while staying under the £100k.
Day: 12 degrees
Night: 8 degrees
Heavy rain, 10mph easterly wind.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2654141
If you want to support cycling, support new roads.
If you want to support public transport (buses), support new roads.
Everyone wins with new roads. Cyclists and drivers.
I'd have absolutely no qualms with a criteria for new roads [except obviously eg new Motorways] being that they must as standard have a dedicated cycle path that is away from both cars and pedestrians. That would support cyclists and drivers, and then build lots of new roads with cycling capabilities, but our cycling lobby here object to that. Funny that.
Another foreign owned monopoly utility.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66389069
That leaves low earning people on a real marginal tax rate of 70% plus. Even more if repaying Student Loans too.
If it were up to me I'd look to abolish all welfare, all exceptions to taxation etc, and replace it all with a UBI which is given to everyone [no exceptions], and then a flat tax rate of maybe 40% on everything earned [again no exceptions]. Maybe 50% at £100k+
Great performance from Panama to score 3 goals against France at the women's world cup in Australia / New Zealand, even though France scored 6. France are ranked 5th in the world and Panama 52nd.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66380377
https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/women?dateId=ranking_20230609
That's why the cycle paths I'm advocating building on new roads include a physical barrier between cars and cycles, amongst other things that means cars physically can't park on those paths, so those paths are true, dedicated cycle paths.
If you want dedicated cycle paths, then build new roads. That way you're not relying on a slap of paint on an existing road.
You'll be delighted to hear that this entire road will be blocked off to traffic next year, making it full pedestrianised with a two way segregated cycle lane through the middle.
Most seats:
Conservatives 90%
Liberals 10%
Type of government:
Con minority 51%
Con majority 38%
Lib minority 10%
Vote share:
Con 37%
Lib 29%
NDP 19%
BQ 7%
Greens 4%
PPC 3%
Seats:
Con 162
Lib 117
BQ 34
NDP 23
Greens 2
https://338canada.com/federal.htm
As for pedestrianising old through roads roads, as I've said repeatedly, I couldn't care less if that happens, so long as there's new roads built to handle the traffic. 👍
Where's the new road?
Looks fantastic: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/13455/final-proposals-for-meadows-to-george-street-project-unveiled
I, and the majority of people in Edinburgh, voted for this is in the local elections last year. Good to see democracy prevail against the tyranny of the motoring minority.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rudy-giuliani-racist-sexist-remarks-lawsuit-1234799473/
The key for a UBI to work is all other stuff must be abolished. The UBI replaces it all [except maybe exceptional non-income related cases like disability support].
If the signposting restrictions say no parking 7am - 7pm then its legal at 10pm. If it says something different, you need to pay attention to that.
That is what those coloured lines mean.
Perhaps you should revise the Highway Code?